the family unit wherever possible. Finding in that case that a family unit existed, the court held on the facts of the case that the beneficiary was the plaintiff's stepchild.

In this case the beneficiaries are adulterine bastards who were born out of wedlock during the time their putative father was married to the petitioner. There is no evidence of the existence of a family unit. On the contrary, these illegitimate offspring indicated that the existing family unit between the petitioner and her husband was adversely affected. The petitioner was naturalized in 1957 and not until approximately eight years later has a visa petition been filed on behalf of the beneficiaries. There is no indication that the sympathetic factors which existed in the Nation case, and the exist ence of a family unit which greatly influenced the court's decision, are present in the instant case. The appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

MATTER OF MILLER

In Visa Petition Proceedings

A-14356955

Decided by Board April 4, 1966

Beneficiary, who was born out of wedlock during the existence of her putative father's marriage to U. S. citizen petitioner, and who has not been legitimated, is not a child within the contemplation of section 101(b)(1), Immigation and Nationality Act, as amended, since there was no close family relationship between the parties until beneficiary's arrival in the United States in July 1965 when 15 years of age, theretofore having always lived with her mother.

The District Director at New York City in a decision dated February 18, 1966, denied the application of the petitioner on the ground that the facts disclosed that the petitioner's husband, the putative father of beneficiary, was never married to beneficiary's mother and that the beneficiary has not otherwise been legitimated. It is concluded by the District Director that the beneficiary is not, therefore, a child as defined under section 101 (b) (1) of the Act. From that decision the petitioner through counsel has appealed to this Board. The appeal will be dismissed.

A reading of this record indicates that the beneficiary of the petition is admittedly the daughter of the petitioner's spouse. The petitioner is a naturalized citizen of the United States and she married the putative father of the beneficiary in January 1945 at Kingston, Jamaica. The petitioner stated that in 1950 her husband told her that he was going to be the father of a child born to Millicent Morgan. The child (beneficiary) was born in July of 1950 and she resided with her natural mother, although allegedly receiving support from the petitioner and her spouse. The petitioner also stated that the beneficiary had on occasion visited with the petitioner and her putative father for extended lengths of time and that a close personal relationship had been maintained. The petitioner stated further that she came to the United States in 1958 and that she had not seen the beneficiary until 1965 when she, the

beneficiary, arrived in the United States. Counsel for petitioner seeks to compare the petition in the instant case with that in the case of Nation v. Esperdy, 239 F. Supp. 531. Counsel contends that the Service has disregarded this decision in its denial of the present petition.

This Board has given careful consideration to the facts contained in this case. We note that the beneficiary has stated under oath that she has always lived with her mother and has stayed with her father only on vacations and on visits. It is noted that the beneficiary made her home with her natural mother until 1965, when she was 15 years of age and when she came to the United State as a visitor. The Supervisory Immigrant Inspector for the Immigration and Naturalization Service has submitted a memorandum for the file in which he urges that the fact that the spouse of the petitioner and the petitioner have supported the child should not be considered any more than a legal obligation to support the beneficiary born out of wedlock.

Our conclusion after a review of the entire file is that this case cannot be considered analogous to the Nation decision, supra. We do not find herein the close family relationship contemplated and present in the Nation decision. It is obvious that there was indeed no close family relationship until the beneficiary arrived in the United States in July 1965. For these reasons we do not consider the beneficiary to be a child within the contemplation of the Nation opinion or within the provisions of section 101 (b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Accordingly, the following order will be entered.

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

MATTER OF COLETTI

In Deportation Proceedings

A-13241835

Decided by Board April 11, 1965

Where respondent was married in Italy by religious ceremony in 1962, a child was born of this union, and respondent lived with his wife in a husband-wife relationship until his entry into the United States on July 6, 1963, with a preference immigrant visa obtained under the then existing provisions of section 203 (a)(3), Immigration and Nationality Act, as the unmarried son of a U. S. resident alien, he was not entitled to such status as he was not “unmarried" within the meaning of the immigration laws even though at the time of entry his religious marriage lacked formal perfection, it having no civil effect until recorded on October 28, 1963, upon his return visit to Italy.

CHARGES:

Order: Act of 1952-Section 241 (a) (1) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1)]—Excludable at entry-Not of proper status under quota-Section 211(a) (4) [8 U.S.C. 1181(a) (4)].

Lodged: Act of 1952-Section 241 (a) (1) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1)]—Excludable at entry-Immigrant, no valid entry documentSection 212(a)(20) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (20)].

The case comes forward on appeal by the trial attorney from a decision of the special inquiry officer dated December 8, 1965 ordering that the proceedings be terminated.

The record relates to a native and citizen of Italy, male, who was issued by the United States Consulate in Genoa, Italy on April 2, 1963 a preference immigrant visa under the then existing provisions of section 203 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as the unmarried son of a United States resident alien. He was admitted to the United States on July 6, 1963 upon presentation of this visa. On October 12, 1963 the respondent departed from the United States and reentered on November 3, 1963, presenting his alien registration receipt card issued to him as an alien previously lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. It has been established

that the respondent was married under the rites of the Catholic Church by a religious ceremony on December 27, 1962 to Anna Maria Salamon at Belluno, Italy. This religious marriage preceded the first admission of the respondent to the United States on July 6, 1963. Upon his return to Italy the respondent's religious marriage was civilly recorded on October 28, 1963 and he has now petitioned for preference immigration classification for his wife to come to the United States.

Section 203 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides for the issuance of preference quota immigrant visas to aliens who are the unmarried sons of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Section 101 (a) (39) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a) (39)) defines the term "unmarried,” when used in reference to any individual as of any time, to mean an individual who at such time is not married, whether or not previously married. The issue in the case is whether the respondent is to be considered as "unmarried" at the time he entered the United States as the "unmarried" son of a lawfully resident alien as required by the terms of his section 203 (a) (3) visa.

There have been introduced into the record the Concordat of 1929 between the Italian Government and Holy See, copies of the Italian marriage laws and the testimony of Dr. Enrico L. Pavia, an expert on Italian law. Article 5 of Italian Law No. 847 of May 27, 1929, "Provisions for application of the part concerning marriage in the Concordat of February 11, 1929 between the Holy See and Italy" (Ex. 8) provides as follows:

- A marriage performed by a minister of the Catholic religion in accordance with the rules of canon law shall, from the day on which it is celebrated, produce the same effects as a civil marriage when it has been recorded in the registers of vital statistics in accordance with the provisions of arts. 9 et seq.

The expert witness testified that it is the recording which makes the marriage exist for civil law; and that the reporting is not merely a ministerial act but that the transcription has a constitutive effect. Based upon the totality of the extensive exhibits and from the testimony of the expert witness, the special inquiry officer has been unable to find anything to contradict the opinion of the expert witness to the effect that the respondent was unmarried under Italian law when he first entered the United States. Conceding that it might well be that the congressional intent with reference to the term "unmarried son" of a lawfully resident alien as contained in section 203 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was being circumvented in the instant case, the special inquiry officer felt he was not free to here endeavor to determine congressional intention be